Lab 5

There is a strong controversy coming from the small city of Kettleman in the San Joaquin Valley due to its proximity to a waste management and the possible health risks that come from it. These controversies related to the landfill project can be clarified through research, government transparency, and GIS techniques. With a focus on GIS we can gather information on issues ranging from pollution, recent birth defects, and safe work environments due to the proximity of the landfill to the city. The Waste Management Co. has made a proposal to the city legislature to make a major expansion and the denizens of the surrounding cities are not yet comfortable with this until the proper research and scientific testing is done from sources that they can trust in order to insure the future safety of the surrounding area. GIS can be a valuable tool in helping answer the questions in what is safe and fair to the surrounding cities while still gainful for the Waste Management Co.

The principal complaint from the people of the surrounding area is that they cannot trust the investigations that have taken place. Kettleman City residents feel there needs to be proper attention and investigation into the claims that that their proximity to the landfill has led to an unusual spike in birth defects in their city and surrounding area. The Kings County Department of Public Health claims "that the extent that a cluster [of birth defects] may exist, it is most likely a random event unrelated to any environmental exposure unique to Kettleman City." They citizens themselves don’t buy it; additional research from the State of California would help ease their minds.

Unfortunately, this has not been the case. The studies that have been conducted by the California Birth Defects Monitoring Program concluded that they could find no link between the site’s proximity to the city and the birth defects of the people. This study too has not been fully accepted by the citizens. The people believe that the methods used to test for such a link is flawed and do not trust the research over their anecdotal evidence of what they see in their neighborhoods. There is a fundamental breakdown in trust between the people of the city and the legislatures that are supposed to represent the people, therefore the people cannot comfortably put the health of them and their children into the government’s hands. With the clear data that GIS can potential provide the public will be more willing to accept the decisions of their local government.

GIS can help inform the public and local government about what is happening in proximity to the landfill based on a variety of factors. But GIS is based on the raw data you build from so the GIS research would have to be in conjunction with other credible research programs that would have no interest in the landfills expansion such as the EPA and California Department of Health and Safety. The techniques in this exercise can present a clear finding to the public that they can trust as well as be used by researchers to determine if expansion is safe or not.

This exercise is very useful in determining the suitably of the site. There are some problems that hinder the suitability analysis in expanding the landfill. The importance of one factor over another is not a finite measurement but rather a social construction that further fuels the debate. The subjective nature of the factors that go into determining the appropriation of the expansion can even further be hindered by the “NIMBY” stance of the residence which no amount of research, data, or GIS can overcome.